You need to open up your definition of what an RPG is. Dark Souls is an RPG but you don't make meaningful choices for the narrative. As are Final Fantasy games for the most part by the way, most of them don't have you making any choices about narrative.
Not really. You're conflating the genre (fantasy) with the nature of the game. I love Dark Souls but it's not an RPG versus a tactical action game set within a fantasy universe. Given it's entirely possible to play through and beat the game without leveling up simply as a result of tactical acuity and decent hand eye co-ordination, it's considerably less about the character in the game space versus the players abilities. That alone sets it at odds with the concept of playing a role.
Role Playing Game as it is used in common parlance applies much more to building out character loadouts than narrative.
That people constantly pass off mutton as lamb is hardly cause to get behind them. By that woolly definition XCOM is an RPG. Certainly I'd argue it has great emergent storytelling, but then again so does CK2 and I wouldn't class that as an RPG either. BF4 has loadouts also, guess that's an RPG as well. Generalizing never does qualification any favours.
Was waiting for the inevitable pay accusation, took longer than it usually does.
Based on your tag it seems clear it's a common theme that at least suggests your less than objective when it comes to the sanctity of Ubisofts titles. Also quit with trying to pass this off as an RPG. If you think levels and loot are essential aspects of what qualifies a game as an RPG then I think its fair to say your real world experience of them is at best
limited. The D&D model is certainly one of the most prevalent, especially within cRPGs because its easy to code for but it by no means the
only model. Classic RPG titles like Traveller never had character levels or obsessed about pickups.
You and a lot of others can't get past it's realistic look, coupled with mmo/rpg-like encounters.
Because they are at odds with each other in terms of messaging. It's like selling a horror story with a romance novel cover. If you're going to visually package something as 'things are tough' 'we're up against it' 'it's a dog eat dog world' then that
should reflect in the nature of your game play as well. Innumerable enemies coupled with damage numbers doesn't work for me in that regard. With that said I'm not saying the game needs to be as brutal as Arma in terms of combat where one shot will put you down and out, but less can be more, and based on what I've seen I'd say the experience would be better served by going for more of a tactical approach (think real time Xcom in 3PS) and keeping the damage definitions within the game space versus a UI abstraction. The dis-junction is tangible and that can be problematic. Consider APB as a prime example. People expected GTA online based on the visual style, where as in reality the game was more Counterstrike set within an open world. Reduce the number of enemies, but make damage much more significant at both ends and you've suddenly made a game where tactics, preparation and team work become a lot more important and therefore a lot more satisfying when you pull things off successfully.
